| 1 |
On 09/06/16 00:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely |
| 4 |
> > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where |
| 5 |
> > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree |
| 6 |
> > would just focus on a high-quality repository of the basic/core things |
| 7 |
> > that everybody needs. Gentoo devs would spend most of their time |
| 8 |
> > maintaining curated small and useful repositories. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> [...] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > The final step is the most difficult (but then again we might never |
| 13 |
> > get so far). It is two-fold. First we make the core/base repository. |
| 14 |
> > Then we identify important subsets that can be logically separated |
| 15 |
> > into repositories, and do this. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Sigh. Every 2 years somebody else comes up with the same silly idea. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 1) Who defines what everybody needs? |
| 21 |
> 2) How do you enforce security and/or qa requirements on the rest? |
| 22 |
> 3) Will you allow non-core dependencies? What guarantees are made there? |
| 23 |
> 4) How do you make sure that different split-out repos actually work |
| 24 |
> together? |
| 25 |
> 5) "logically separated subsets" means either "loss of functionality" or |
| 26 |
> "impossible to do" |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Independent of how many magic tools you whip up this will be a |
| 29 |
> significant |
| 30 |
> step down in functionality and quality, and a big step towards a big |
| 31 |
> unmanageable steaming pile of cr... |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
+2 |
Archives